I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.

Does this butthurt rant count as responding to me, or am I still waiting for you to get around to it

Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

Then there was the educated Texan from Texas wholooked like someone in Technicolor and felt,patriotically, that people of means - decent folk -should be given more votes than drifters, whores, criminals, degenerates, atheists and indecent folk- people without means.

Yossarian was unspringing rhythms in the letters the day they brought the Texan in. It was anotherquiet, hot, untroubled day. The heat pressed heavily on the roof, stifling sound. Dunbar was lyingmotionless on his back again with his eyes staring up at the ceiling like a doll's. He was workinghard at increasing his life span. He did it by cultivating boredom. Dunbar was working so hard atincreasing his life span that Yossarian thought he was dead. They put the Texan in a bed in themiddle of the ward, and it wasn't long before he donated his views.

Dunbar sat up like a shot. 'That's it,' he cried excitedly. 'There was something missing - all the timeI knew there was something missing - and now I know what it is.' He banged his fist down into hispalm. 'No patriotism,' he declared.

Lionel Mandrake:spiderpaz: Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.

When? Citation, or you're lying.

Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I do remember people trying to get a proportional thing going in CA. It was Republicans, of course and it went nowhere.

I do remember the general sentiment among voters was pro-proportional if and when it is enacted by all states simultaneously, but the Republicans aren't interested in that idea.

What I remember was a plan to create essentially remove the electoral college by having 270 EV worth of states pledge them to whomever won the popular vote, thereby making the president popularly elected. I don't remember hearing of a proportional representation idea by congressional district.

That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.

The link contained brief comments by the author of the Nebraska law:"Realistically," said former State Sen. Dianna Schimek of Lincoln, "it would be better if we didn't have the Electoral College. But we're never going to do away with that. So I think the law we have would probably be the best system for everybody - it gives everybody a feeling that their vote counts at the grass-roots level."

Schimek authored the 1991 legislation that allowed Nebraska to divvy up electoral votes by district. Maine has had such a law since 1972.

"I thought other states would think it was a good idea, too," Schimek said. "It has been proposed in some but didn't pass. Part of that is because some of the bigger states don't want to give up their electoral strength."

I included that link because some people refuse to believe some things they're told (ie.- "Yea, Dems wrote the law but only to placate Republicans") So I made sure to grab a quote by her.

I mean, c'mon, there's just so many more people in the cities than in rural America-sorry, sorry I meant Real 'Murica that their votes shouldn't count as much. Maybe we could give urban voters a fraction of a vote, I don't know, say, 3/5 of a vote. That would balance it out.

That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.

The link contained brief comments by the author of the Nebraska law:"Realistically," said former State Sen. Dianna Schimek of Lincoln, "it would be better if we didn't have the Electoral College. But we're never going to do away with that. So I think the law we have would probably be the best system for everybody - it gives everybody a feeling that their vote counts at the grass-roots level."

Schimek authored the 1991 legislation that allowed Nebraska to divvy up electoral votes by district. Maine has had such a law since 1972.

"I thought other states would think it was a good idea, too," Schimek said. "It has been proposed in some but didn't pass. Part of that is because some of the bigger states don't want to give up their electoral strength."

I included that link because some people refuse to believe some things they're told (ie.- "Yea, Dems wrote the law but only to placate Republicans") So I made sure to grab a quote by her.

So the Democrats were all over this idea in exactly one state where it has done pretty much zero to help them.

I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.

A primer- LinkWell since it's being done in 2 states already... who championed the law in Nebraska?Well the bill was created by Dianna Schimeck... who is a democrat. It was narrowly passed by a vote of 25-23 before it was signed into law by Ben Nelson... who is a Democrat.Don't believe that link? Have another. LinkWhy, in fact, Democrats were proud of this all the way up to as recently as May of this year- LinkNebraska Republicans tried to change it in 2010- The Democratic Guv stopped them. Link

So there you are, Democrats liked this idea until Republicans proposed it.

Now, I just spent time doing research which will no doubt be ignored. I assume, like in the past, no one will bother to apologize to me for the vicious slurs despite being correct.

Lost Thought 00: If I ever meet these people in person, they will not survive the day.

So you advocate the indiscriminate murder of people who you disagree with politically. The hacks who claim the Tea Party is violent will never call you out on it so feel free to be as unamerican as you can be.

------------------------

It seems the proper generalization is that when a state generally votes for one party in a presidential election, and the other party gets control of all the levers of power in the state, you'll get an EV splitting bill at some point.

A couple of other states have had movements to split their electoral vote as Nebraska does. But this BS about assigning the remaining two electoral votes based on who won the majority of the other electoral votes is new.

It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You know I try to remain objective. I have voted for Republicans in the past. I am currently registered `unaffiliated', and I like to think that both sides are bad, and to some extent they are. But when you have one party whose `strategy' is to prevent a certain demographic from voting, it's a pretty disgusting paradigm.

"Although it remains almost totally unknown to the public," writes Kurtz in the second book, "a great deal of Obama's early political career was devoted to the goal of turning Michael Jackson black again."

People in my district - they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don't mean anything if they're outvoted in metropolitan districts. It can go either way - it doesn't necessarily mean that one political party is going to be favored over another.

Oh, you feel discouraged! Your vote doesn't mean anything if more people disagree with you than agree! Oh, let us hold this poor dear's hand and make sure that his vote means something! Which means necessarily simply asking him who he wants to be elected and the majority be damned!

I'm sure Democrats in the Deep South feel discouraged too when they go to vote. Got any help for them while you're at it?

Oh, right, this is only for Republicans in states with Republican dominated state legislatures, whose state just happened to vote for Obama. What's next? Gerrymandering all the Democratically majority cities into one district so the majority of electoral votes end up going to Republican Presidential candidates?

Bendal:What's next? Gerrymandering all the Democratically majority cities into one district so the majority of electoral votes end up going to Republican Presidential candidates?

Dude, that already happened. Haven't you been paying any attention since 2010?

The Republicans gerrymandered the shiat out of a ton of states in the 2010 re-districting. It's only because they already have done that that they are now trying this electoral-college scheme (only Obama-voting states, of course).

The Republican Party is without question the greatest current threat to American democracy and freedom. They will lie, cheat, game the system, suppress minority votes, change voting rules and hours, purge voter registration lists, throw away registration cards, install voting machines with no paper trail and then tamper with them, alter absentee ballots - these are all things that actually happened. They are completely shameless and unscrupulous and will do anything in their lust to gain and hold power. So it should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that they are now trying to gerrymander the electoral college.

The GOP are enemies of democracy, and they must be fought tenaciously by all freedom-loving and patriotic Americans.

eddiesocket:Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

badLogic:eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I've been thinking about this idea for a bit. What happens in this hypothetical?

Suppose a number of states equalling 270 electoral votes sign on to this national popular vote compact, causing it to go into effect for the next presidental election or two. However, after the next Census and re-apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes, the group of states now longer controls a majority of the electoral college, but instead only 268 or something? Does the bill become void again at that point?

It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Its funny how, a 100,000 years ago, the Saber-tooth Party was proposing plans very like this one in the 100,000 B.C. election (and for that matter, the Mastodon Party were opposing those plans at every turn). The more thing change, the more they really aren't the same.

Hmmm, I wonder what might have happened in the 2000 election that might have prompted that response. Because I'm sure it was totally the same thing . . .

Millennium:It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[citation needed]

The only plan even remotely like this I've seen come out of the Democratic party was abolishing the electoral college altogether and going with a national popular vote, which I support, as it would give the people more of a voice. This nonsense of giving entrenched politicos yet another election to gerrymander would do the exact opposite.

Doc Daneeka:badLogic: eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I've been thinking about this idea for a bit. What happens in this hypothetical?

Suppose a number of states equalling 270 electoral votes sign on to this national popular vote compact, causing it to go into effect for the next presidental election or two. However, after the next Census and re-apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes, the group of states now longer controls a majority of the electoral college, but instead only 268 or something? Does the bill become void again at that point?

No idea, as I have not been following it that closely. I would guess that once the tipping point hit, other states would jump on the bandwagon as to not be made irrelevant.

badLogic:No idea, as I have not been following it that closely. I would guess that once the tipping point hit, other states would jump on the bandwagon as to not be made irrelevant.

I believe there was also a proportional vote initiative, where the state's electoral votes would be divided proportionally among the candidates based on the popular vote within the state. So, California, for example, which has 55 electoral votes (IIRC) would give 34 of them to Obama, 20 to Mitt Romney, and one to Gary Johnson in the last election (if I did the math right).

The flaw in this plan, of course, is that states that don't have very many electoral votes wouldn't effectively be able to divide them among candidates - if you have less than 10 electoral votes (over half of the states) and your state's popular vote always ends up with a less than 10% margin between the candidates, the EVs will always be split evenly, with maybe one swing vote going to the winner of the state. So it would more closely mirror the popular vote, but would still have enough noise in there to defeat the will of the people. The only benefit from that proposal was that third parties would be able to qualify for more stuff since they would be able to win electoral votes.